This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the
Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created
privately after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a
notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is
that they are copyrighted and may not be coped unless you *know* otherwise.
There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you
should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and
by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If
it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too.
You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you
come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

False. Whether
you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s essentially
the only difference. It’s still a violation if you give it away--and there
can still be heavy damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property.

“If it’s posted to Usenet it’s in the public domain.”

False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly
puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the
author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” those exact
words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to
copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and other feel that Usenet is an
automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter
of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer’s opinion
we should all pray it isn’t true) it simply would suggest posters are
implicitly granting permissions “for the sort of copy one might expect when
one posts to Usenet” and in no case is this a placement of material into the
public domain. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to
supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the
first place. If the poster didn’t, then all the copies are pirate, and no
implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public
domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright
law versions. However, none of this applies to an original article posted to
USENET.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of
all rights. You can’t make something “PD for non-commercial use.” If
your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on
it.

“My posting was just fair use!”

See other notes on fair use for
a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The “fair use” exemption to copyright law was created to allow things such
as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted
works without the permission of the author. Intent, and damage to the commercial
value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article
from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticize the quality
of the New York Times, or because you couldn’t find time to write your own
story, or didn’t want your readers to have to pay to log onto the online
services with the story or buy a copy of the paper? The former is probably fair
use, the latter probably aren’t.

Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed.
(One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the
commentary.) it should not harm the commercial value of the work (which is
another reason why reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)

Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet follow-ups is for commentary and
reply, and it doesn’t damage the commercial value of the original posting
(if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn’t an exact
doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the
copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go
beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don’t apply to
the typical net misclaim of fair use. It’s a risky defense to attempt.

“If you don’t defend your copyright you lose it.”

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given
away. You may be thinking of trade marks, which can be weakened or lost if not
defended.

“Somebody has that name copyrighted!”

You can’t “copyright a name,” or anything short like that. Titles
usually don’t qualify- - but I doubt you may write a song entitled “Everybody’s
got something to hide except for me and my monkey.” (J.lennon/P.MMcCartney).

You can’t copyright words, but you can trademark them, generally by using
them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an
“Apple” computer. Apple computer “owns” that word applied to
computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when
applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and
owning a mark doesn’t mean complete control- - see a more detailed treatise
on this law for details.

You can’t use somebody else’s trademark in a way that would unfairly hurt
the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the
real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark’s
god name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be
very wary of trying to label my works with a name like “mtv.” :-)

“They can’t get me, defendant in court have powerful rights!”

Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually
get sued, not charged with a crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a
principle of criminal law, as is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sorry,
but in copyright suits, these don’t apply the same way or at all.

It’s mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or
believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In
civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

“Oh, so copyright violation isn’t a crime or anything?”

Actually, recently in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more
than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (at least
you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don’t think you’re
going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have
much better things to do than that. This is a fairly new, untested statute.

“It doesn’t hurt anybody- - in fact it’s free advertising.”

It’s up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they
want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don’t rationalize whether it
hurts the owner or not, *ask* them. Usually that’s not too hard to do. Time
past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and
appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn’t ask, and
forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that
employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who
enjoyed it. Even if you can’t think of how the author or owner gets hurt,
think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance
to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people’s
flamewars.

“They e-mailed me
a copy, so I can post it.”

To have a copy
is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted.
However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly
*report* on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even
quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary
message might well get no damages, because the message has no commercial
value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On
the other hand, don’t go nuts if somebody posts your E-mail. If it was an
ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no
copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won’t get any
damages if you sue them.

In Summary

These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are
written, and no copyright notice is required.

Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only
damages are affected by that.

Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don’t
grant you any permission to do further copying except *perhaps* the sort of
copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net.

Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social
purposes. Ask your self why you are republishing what you are posting and why
you couldn’t have just rewritten it in you r own words.

Copyright is not lost because you don’t defend it; that’s a concept
from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don’t
say somebody has a name copyrighted.

Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal
defendants you hear so much about don’t apply. Watch out, however, as new
laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm.
Don’t rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it’s
not that hard to ask permission.

Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from
E-mail isn’t, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any
damages from you for posting it.

Permission is granted to freely copy this document in electronic form, or to
print for personal use. If you had not seen a notice like this on the
document, you would have to assume you did not have permission to copy it.
This document is still protected by you-know-what even though it has no
copyright notice.